Compare And Contrast Post World War 1 And 2 On Russia
In world history, there are two distinct time periods that brought along great changes in economic standing, industry, and world political powers. These two time periods can be classified as the post World War I and post World War II. Throughout the early twentieth century, Russia had been know to be a great power in the world and had great influences on many of the worlds changes. In looking at Russia specifically during these two time periods, I believe it is important to categorize their successes and downfalls in two main areas, politics and then economically and the way of living. In comparison of post WWI and post WWII in these two categories, it’s easy to see that Russia was better off politically after WWII, due to the lack of constant
…show more content…
In February 1917, there was a mass rebellion lead by woman and workers that created the end of the tsar and reign of the provisional government, which granted them equal rights (Roberts 257). Not too long after, in October, another revolution occurred in which Lenin and the Bolsheviks overthrew the provisional government. This revolution eventually lead to the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which ended Russia’s participation in WWI (Roberts 258). The signing of this lead to a huge downfall in the economy of Russia. They had lost land to Germany, including ¾ of their coal industry, their manufacturing output was down to 1/5 of what it had been pre-war, Europe had hit a period of starvation in the winter 1918 (Roberts 267), and in 1921 …show more content…
From 1917-1940, there were four major shifts in power all bringing along different beliefs of how Russia should be run. The two main powers I will address are Lenin and Stalin. Lenin brought along the idea of communism, adopting anti-revolutionist principles, and using propaganda to influence general peace. His beliefs in the Comintern lead to a strong militaristic and dictator regime, creating “authority untrammeled by any laws, absolutely unrestricted by any rules whatever, and based directly on force.” (Roberts 294) Stalin held up this strong dictator way of ruling which continued through WWII. As you can see, their shifts in power does not lead to a constant political lifestyle, showing me that Politically Russia was worse off after
In February 1917, there was a mass rebellion lead by woman and workers that created the end of the tsar and reign of the provisional government, which granted them equal rights (Roberts 257). Not too long after, in October, another revolution occurred in which Lenin and the Bolsheviks overthrew the provisional government. This revolution eventually lead to the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which ended Russia’s participation in WWI (Roberts 258). The signing of this lead to a huge downfall in the economy of Russia. They had lost land to Germany, including ¾ of their coal industry, their manufacturing output was down to 1/5 of what it had been pre-war, Europe had hit a period of starvation in the winter 1918 (Roberts 267), and in 1921 …show more content…
From 1917-1940, there were four major shifts in power all bringing along different beliefs of how Russia should be run. The two main powers I will address are Lenin and Stalin. Lenin brought along the idea of communism, adopting anti-revolutionist principles, and using propaganda to influence general peace. His beliefs in the Comintern lead to a strong militaristic and dictator regime, creating “authority untrammeled by any laws, absolutely unrestricted by any rules whatever, and based directly on force.” (Roberts 294) Stalin held up this strong dictator way of ruling which continued through WWII. As you can see, their shifts in power does not lead to a constant political lifestyle, showing me that Politically Russia was worse off after